R. v. Nanji Trading Col. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Crim. Rev. 160, 161, 162-D-71; 5/1/72; Biron, J

 

R. v. Nanji Trading Col. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Crim. Rev. 160, 161, 162-D-71; 5/1/72; Biron, J

The version combined 14 cases for convenience. The issues were the same. The accused, three companies, were charged with overloading c/ss 44 and 51 as read in conjunction with General Notice No. 242 of 1971, of the Highways Ordinance, Cap. 167. Please of guilty were entered in the Magistrate’s Court and the companies were all convicted and fined. Notice to show cause why the sentences should not be enhanced wee served on them apparently because of the prevalence of the offence. It was then argued that (1) the particulars of offence as worded were more appropriate to ‘Overloading a vehicle’ than ‘driving a vehicle with excessive weight over the bridge’: (2) that the prosecution filed to set out in the charge the essentials as are required by s. 44 of the Highways Ordinance e.g. an averment that the vehicle concerned was of excessive weight or driven at excessive speed without the written consent of the road authority; (3) the charge did not allege that the vehicle in each case exceeded the specified weight in crossing the bridge without the written consent of the road authority and that although all the companies pleaded guilty in writing to the charge, it does not necessarily follow that the companies concerned had not in fact obtained the written consent of the road authority. The pleas, therefore, did not constitute unequivocal pleas of guilty to the offence as set out in the section of the Ordinance.

            Held: (1) “The first ground of objection ….. However, would not, I think, be fatal to the conviction as the particulars of the offence read together with the statement of offence which specifically refers to the General Notice which lays down the maxima weights and widths of vehicles, which are permitted to cross the bridge, sufficiently disclose and describe the offence. The defeat in the charge if any is curable under section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” (2) “Although it may well be argued that [point three} is a somewhat technical point ….. it is of such substance that the Court finds itself constrained, however reluctantly, to uphold the submissions made on behalf of the companies concerned that the defects in the charge sheet are fatal to the convictions.” (3) Convictions quashed and the sentences set aside.